Arguable, perhaps, if they usually vote as a bloc. Do they? (I know Cubans usually vote Republican.)
One of the analysts on last night (can’t recall who) said that historically it’s been difficult to get Hispanic men to vote for any woman. Whether that’s true, I don’t know.
Esteban Colberto has got to do something with this . . .
Ahhh so by that rationale whomever Richardson decides to endorse, if anybody, that they would be the next POTUS? Most likely?
No – his endorsement could swing votes in New Mexico, but they had their primary yesterday. Too late now.
All this speculation and accusations of racism appear to be moot, considering that
Which makes sense since there really is not monolithic Hispanic (Latino though I hate that term myself) community. It’s definitely going to vary by region.
-XT
Agreed with BG. Richardson has shown why he is not presidential timber. He couldn’t decide to act. From his statements he clearly admired Obama more and saw that endorsing Obama could make a difference, not only in the election but in building bridges between Latino and the Black communities. He just allowed himself to be pressured into non-action. Yet he didn’t even have the spine to throw his lot in with HRC all the way. In trying to straddle both ways he ends up with a great shot at nothing. He is now irrelevant.
Great resume though. 
Speaking for my Latina girlfriend, immigration is a key issue for her. She thinks that Hillary is far better on this issue than Obama. End of story.
I don’t know.
Hillary had the lead in hispanic and Asian votes; Obama had the lead in Black and White votes.
How is it that New Mexicans use the term Hispanic and it seems that the rest of the county uses Latino anyway? You’re not the first Hispanic I’ve heard say that he hates the term Latino. And in this state, it sure seems like you’d be more likely to hear Chicano used than Latino, but neither used nearly as often as Hispanic. I always figured it had something to do with the history of the area.
Note: I also use the term Hispanic and never Latino. Heck, Latino just jars me somehow.
Given what went down in 1996, I wouldn’t be surprised by this feeling. But it represents a vulnerability of Clinton’s among other voters.
Or how about what went down late in Clinton’s presidency? Warning: Link goes to Flash with sound but is otherwise SFW.
I don’t know if it’s a South West thing (I actually grew up in Arizona) or what. When I was growing up (to me) Latino was the equivalent of ‘Negro’. A lot of the time when that term was directed at me it was either in a condescending voice or in a way that was derogatory but I wasn’t supposed to know it…if that makes sense.
It’s a generational thing to. A lot of my younger cousins say I shouldn’t use the term, that it’s derogatory in itself (part of the rejection of our Spanish roots, and all the evils of the Spanish empire, blah blah blah). Some of my family are quite radically Hispanic…as in they want to make the South West it’s own country type radical.
Anyway, as with any label, some terms rub some people the wrong way because of past experience…and terms change with generations. When I was a kid calling a black a ‘nigger’ was likely to get you cut. Calling a person of Hispanic blood a ‘Chicano’ or ‘Latino’ was likely to get you the same thing. Now I hear those terms tossed around casually, usually by someone of that supposed race.
I’m just getting old…
-XT
I agree with Michael Barone: “Latino” is the preferable term because it (1) includes Brazilians and (2) does not implicitly include European Spaniards.